Opinion
Civil No. JFM-04-3456.
December 2, 2004
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff has brought this action against her former employer, alleging that she was wrongfully discharged because she complained about hazardous and unsafe workplace conditions. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion. The motion will be granted.
There are at least two fallacies in plaintiff's claim. First, she has not, as required by Maryland law, specified the source of the public policy in violation of which she was allegedly discharged. See, e.g., Luy v. Baltimore Police Department, 326 F. Supp. 2d 682, 692 (D. Md. 2004); Porterfield v. Mascari II, Inc., 142 Md. App. 134, 788 A.2d 242, 245 (2002). Second, Maryland's Occupational Safety and Health Act ("MOSHA"), requires an employer to provide a "safe and healthful" workplace that is "free from each recognized hazard that is causing or likely to cause death or seriously physical harm to . . . [an] employee." Maryland Code Ann., Art. 89, § 5-104(a). To the extent that plaintiff is relying upon MOSHA as the source of the public policy she alleges has been violated by defendant, her wrongful discharge claim fails because MOSHA also provides a statutory remedy for its violation. See Maryland Code Ann., Art. 89, § 5-604(b); Makovi v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 316 Md. 603, 605, 561 A.2d 179, 180 (1989) (holding that a wrongful discharge claim is "inherently limited to remedying only those discharges . . . which otherwise would not be vindicated by a civil remedy.").
A separate order granting defendant's motion to dismiss is being entered herewith.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is, this 2nd day of December 2004.ORDERED
1. Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted; and
2. This action is dismissed.